IRB site rates the world cup finalists, 1995 AB's on top.

The IRB website has rated the 14 finalists of the past world cups (http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/rugbyworldcup2015/news/newsid=2060925.html#rwc+2015+the+finalist+countdown). Here's the list:

14. England 2007
13. France 2011
12. France 1999
11. Australia 2003
10. France 1987
9. England 1991
8. New Zealand 2011
7. Australia 1991
6. South Africa 2007
5. New Zealand 1987
4. South Africa 1995
3. Australia 1999
2. England 2003
1. New Zealand 1995

Thoughts?

Gee thats a hard one.
Biltong will have to disagree considering we lost that one.

I'd say the 1995 AB's were probably the best I've seen in 5 RWC's. Awesome side.

Personally I'd say that the 1999 Australia team and 2007 boks side were much better than the England 2003 team, who were about a year over the hill at the time.

I'd put the NZ 2011 side into the top two.

Its really hard to compare all these sides.

Roddersm I wouldn't say the 2007 boks side was that great. They had one of the easiest world cup runs ever. Most sides on that list probably could have beaten them in my opinion.

Fair enough beshocked...my memory of 2007 is pretty hazy to be honest..I can't seem to remember what happened after the group stages...

Tells a tale that theres only 5 countries on there.....

Hard to rate a side better than the team that beat them. I always felt that the England '91 team was better than the Ozzie '91 team. But would never rate them as such as we lost (Bob Dwyer's stroke of genius in trying to get us to play an expansive game when we had a forward pack capable of winning the game).

Nonetheless, I don't have too many quibbles. In the Professional era, the best sides I have seen are the 1995 All Blacks, 2002 England side, 2005 All Black side, and the 2007 Boks. (I couldn't put them in an order, as it is too difficult to compare teams from different eras - although lots of fun.

nganboy wrote:Gee thats a hard one.
Biltong will have to disagree considering we lost that one.

It is just a list. Subjective and baed on personal opinion.

beshocked wrote:Roddersm I wouldn't say the 2007 boks side was that great. They had one of the easiest world cup runs ever. Most sides on that list probably could have beaten them in my opinion.

Now this is something I can disagree with.

It looks about right to me, although I'd definitely move the SA side of 2007 down close to the bottom as they weren't much better than the limited, but hardworking, England side that they beat.

SafeAsMilk wrote:It looks about right to me, although I'd definitely move the SA side of 2007 down close to the bottom as they weren't much better than the limited, but hardworking, England side that they beat.

36-0?

Yeah I see where you get that.

This seems rather a strange thing to do. How a beaten finalist can be on top is beyond me.

If only they could put their minds to something useful like thinking up ways to make the breakdown simpler instead of this exercise in pointlessness, maybe we´d have a better view of these old farts. Alas...

biltongbek wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:It looks about right to me, although I'd definitely move the SA side of 2007 down close to the bottom as they weren't much better than the limited, but hardworking, England side that they beat.

36-0?

Yeah I see where you get that.

Well you see how bad England were! I meant over the tournament, but specifically in the final. That SA was a well-organised machine, but shouldn't really be mentioned alongside most of those quality sides in the list.

2007 was a pretty average World Cup won by a well-drilled, but unremarkable side.

How can the 1995 all blacks be the best? They lost!

SafeAsMilk wrote:
2007 was a pretty average World Cup won by a well-drilled, but unremarkable side.

Not sure I agree with that, they were a very strong side and won at a canter. Look at some of the names in that side: Matfield, Botha, Habana, Smit....they didn't do anything spectacular but were very strong all round.

I think they were a better and stronger version of the 2003 England side.

No one else think the 2011 NZ side should be near the top?

The way i see it is you have to look at each country individually first.

NZ in the final in 1987, 1995, 2011
SA in the final in 1995 and 2007
Oz in the final in 1991, 1999 and 2003
England in the final in 1991, 1999 and 2007
France in 1987, 1999 and 2011.

first rate these individual teams according to their performances and not the preceding form at the world cup.

NZ
In 1987 they were untouchable
In 1995 they were untouchable but yet lost in the final against a very determined SA team.
In 2011 they looked very good but not untouchable.

So I rate the 1987 team top, then 1995 and then 2011

SA
They weren't the favourites in 1995 or 2007, but as a complete team the 2007 one was better. The 1995 team was put together by Kitch Christie in a short space of time. fitness was their key.

The 2007 team was well drilled, very experienced and had an answer for whomever they had to face.

Even though SA didn't have to beat NZ and Oz like they did in the 1995 world cup, First 2007 and the n 1995.

Australia.
Didn't see 1991, their 1999 team in my opinion was their best, they beat a very strong springbok team in the semi and had a squad littered with stars.

Their 2003 team was decent, but not as great as 1999.

First 1999 then 1991 and then 2003

England.
didn't see 1991, 2003 solid team, 2007 poor until when it mattered.

Rating first 2003, then 1991 then 2007

France.
didn't see 1987, but did see reruns, solid team with some big names, 1999 in my opinion their best performance and 2011 not great at all.

So first 1999, then 1987 then 2011.

Now you can mix them up any way you want to.

Rating a team that LOST their final as the best ever in RWC history completely misses the point of sport.

I reckon that Pienaar will be happier with his winners medal and 4th place on that list than Lomu is with first place and the best losers medal.

That´s a great strike rate in the finals Biltong. Reach two finals and make it count. Anyone who faces you in a final in the future is going to be very worried.

Can´t argue with your reasoning there Biltong. I did see 91 and it´s a fair assessment.

But really the one record that counts is Australia, SA and NZ have two RWCs and England one. England 2015 could be a chance for England to equal the scores, for a team who has never won it like France to get on the board or one team to go in the outright lead.

Who did the 2007 South Africa team need to beat? England x 2,Fiji,Tonga,Samoa and Argentina. That's it pretty much.

To win the 2003 world cup England beat France,South Africa,Wales,Samoa and Australia (on their own patch). So virtually all top teams bar NZ who you would have fancied them against. Of them obviously the biggest scalp was Australia.

The 2003 England side would have beaten the South Africa 2007 side.

Could have beaten beshocked. All this hypothetical stuff can be taken so far I´m afraid.

You can only play the teams that are put in front of you. Who´s to say if SA had played the likes of France, NZ or Australia the results wouldn´t have been the same. They beat Australia, NZ and France in 95.

Well kiakahaaotearoa England were the no 1 side in the world. Pretty sure SA were 2nd behind NZ in 2007.

Comparing the 1995 SA side to the England 2003 side is much harder - virtually impossible.

Anyway it's all down to personal opinion.

beshocked wrote:The 2003 England side would have beaten the South Africa 2007 side.

That's Bollix Beshocked, sure the Boks trounced the remnants of that side 36-0 a few years later. They didn't decline by 37 points in 4 seasons. It would have been very close but for me player for player that boks side was better.

roddersm wrote:sure the Boks trounced the remnants of that side 36-0 a few years later. They didn't decline by 37 points in 4 seasons"

So, did England get better by 30 points in the two weeks leading up to the final or did the Boks get 30 points worse or was it about 15 either way?

Beshocked I´m not saying England 2003 weren´t a good side. I am saying that sometimes in sport things go against the run of play. France, like England in 2007, were poor at the beginning of the tournament but showed that it doesn´t matter at the business end of the tournament.

England had an impressive run of victories against all the major sides. There´s no doubt with that. But sometimes the favourites don´t win and sport is never 100 per cent certain based on rankings.

No it isn't bollix roddersm. The England side of 2003 had the year before trounced the South Africans 53-3 inflicting their heaviest ever defeat in international rugby. Oh and in 2003 the England team destroyed Ireland to win the grandslam at Landsdowne Road. I think it was 42-6.

I remember both very well Beshocked...that was a very strong England side, a great side...I just don't think there is much between that side and the 2007 boks who I believe would shade it if they met. Its all subjective.

Both had huge packs and played fairly conservatively but the boks side were more balanced imo.

England beat Wales and France en route to the final and Australia weren't great at the time so I'm not sure you could say it was the toughest run either.

England beat every single top nation bar New Zealand. Pretty tough in my opinion.

Fair point, thats why they are a great side but it was an era when the tri nations weren't great and there wasn't much depth. Come 2007 the 'Celts', Argentina, NZ were all much stronger and the top sides were closer together.

The top sides closer together in 2007? Are you sure?

The celts were much stronger? Which ones? Obviously not Ireland and Wales.

Ireland were stronger in the 2003 world cup - almost beating Australia, beating Argentina narrowly and making the quarter finals. Compare that to 2007 where they were unceremoniously dumped out.

Wales were stronger in 2003 too with very spirited performances against England and New Zealand. They also reached the quarter finals. In the 2007 world cup they were hopeless - being humiliated by Fiji.

Scotland were similar in both competitions.

Too often though people think this has happened so that must also happen.

England 2003 may well beat SA 2007 in a hypothetical match. But sport doesn´t work like that. The ABs of 2007 were arguably a more complete side than 2011 but look at how things worked out for them.

I was amazed at how many people wrote off France in the 2011 final. The final is different. Anything can happen. What´s happened before doesn´t really matter. The 95 AB side cruelly found that out.

Can't agree Beshocked...the Wales and Irish teams that were in the 2007 RWC were far better than the ones in 2003..the fact that they did so poorly supports my point that there were more stronger sides around. The French were stronger in 2007 too.

The fact that an Irish side who had been trounced 42-6 by England at home came with in a whisker of beating Australia shows they weren't that great of a side.

Fast forward 2007 a Welsh side who won a GS in 2006 lost to Fiji and an Irish side who narrowly missed out on a GS were beaten by Argentina, who also beat the hosts and 6N champions France twice.

It was a much tougher tournament.

Roddersm do you genuinely believe that? Are you taking the urine? That Welsh side in 2007 was appalling. They got destroyed in a friendly at Twickenham 62-5 by a relatively mediocre England side. They got humiliated by Fiji. They were rubbish then.

Wales won the GS in 2005.

Ireland were in complete disarray in the 2007 world cup. They were not that good.

To show you how mediocre the teams in 2007 were - England who were mediocre got to the final beating France and Australia on the way.

On a side note, does that annoying ad that pops up have to have sound? I don´t mind the ad per se but the music is not a good idea for those people working in an office who might alert their bosses to the fact they´re not doing any work.

Can we get the mods on this to sort it out?

Not sure how they judging it, but putting my slightly biased (again) glasses on, I would have said Wallabies 1999 was the best world cup side, conceding only one try, against USA of all people, in the whole campainge

beshocked wrote:Roddersm do you genuinely believe that? Are you taking the urine? That Welsh side in 2007 was appalling. They got destroyed in a friendly at Twickenham 62-5 by a relatively mediocre England side. They got humiliated by Fiji. They were rubbish then.

Wales won the GS in 2005.

Ireland were in complete disarray in the 2007 world cup. They were not that good.

To show you how mediocre the teams in 2007 were - England who were mediocre got to the final beating France and Australia on the way.

All fair points but I stand by my view that the 2007 boks were better than England in 2003 and there wasn't much in it.

is it based on just the final?? if so thats harsh on the french 2011 side as tbf they played pretty well then

Er...so a side that didn't win a tournament is the best side? Hmm....

Not sure where this is going,1987 All Blacks were way ahead of the field,I doubt the Boks would have won 1987,certainly not1991.
With no Provincial sides to soften them up like the Caviliers tour,The All Blacks only lost one match outside tests on that tour too.Better than par for the Course in terms of SA v NZ matches.
England did`nt meet NZ 2003,considering they won by 3 points[away]and 2 points[home]IF they met no forgone conclusion for England.
On historical Grounds has to be All Blacks 1987,THE only RWC side not to suffer defeat.Post RWC by you guessed it All Blacks first up,Boks 2007 had the answers for anyone? not by the record versus All Blacks 2007[in SA]

Hmmm I dunno emack, 1987 NZ had 4 tries scored against them... Oz 1999 only 1 try... and didn't lose a match either

So I reckon Oz 1999!!

Oz didn't beat every side by 20 though...

True, we had a tough game against the boks in the semis, but think they cruised thru all the other games, including the final.

Yeah they did mate. That's what irritates me about people saying our 99 choke was the worst of all time. You would have hammered us in the final too-despite our 3N win you thumped us by 20 in the last game.

disneychilly wrote:That's what irritates me about people saying our 99 choke was the worst of all time

Who says that? that's nonsence......your 1995 and 2007 chokes were way worse...

Hahaha. True those were more literal chokes Rodders-us choking on the vomit coming up our throats in 95 and Barnes choking on his whistle in that 2nd half

emack2 wrote:Not sure where this is going,1987 All Blacks were way ahead of the field,I doubt the Boks would have won 1987,certainly not1991.
With no Provincial sides to soften them up like the Caviliers tour,The All Blacks only lost one match outside tests on that tour too.Better than par for the Course in terms of SA v NZ matches.
England did`nt meet NZ 2003,considering they won by 3 points[away]and 2 points[home]IF they met no forgone conclusion for England.
On historical Grounds has to be All Blacks 1987,THE only RWC side not to suffer defeat.Post RWC by you guessed it All Blacks first up,Boks 2007 had the answers for anyone? not by the record versus All Blacks 2007[in SA]

Alan you cannot compare the Springboks before the world cup with their appraoch and mentality during a world cup.

The world cup in 2003 was a nightmare for many reasons and when you read Victor Matfields book as I am doing at the moment there were many reasons why they didn't perform then.

apart from the fiasco of 2003 the Boks even though never favourites in any world cup, I see us as the biggest threat to any team in the world cup, our mentality is the cup belongs to us, simply because we never competed in the first two.

Our exit in 1999 could just as well have been an Australian exit and the 2011 one, well we all know the story.

Basing an assumption on pure conjecture that we would not have beaten NZ in 2007 is just that subjective conjecture.